| 0 |
Subject: RotoGuru Golf
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Thu, May 06, 2004, 13:46
I'm thinking of building my own golf game. The TSN game is not well supported, the repricing formula has gone haywire, and the PFT format sucks.
Here are the basic parameters I'm contemplating:
1. Free to enter. No prizes (unless someone wants to organize a separate pool).
2. Standard best ball format for scoring. You start each tournament with a foursome, and there will be no trading during the tournament. Having your golfers make the cut will be an important success factor.
3. Each golfer will be priced, and you will have a fixed pot of money to buy your initial foursome. After that, golfer prices will vary from week to week (and correspondingly your "franchise value") based on weekly performance, not trading. The repricing formula will be "open book", and work something like this:- A player who enters the tournament and fails to make the cut will have a fixed price decline. This might be a flat dollar amount, or perhaps a percentage of the price.
- A player who makes the cut will have a price increase based upon his performance in the post-cut (usually Saturday & Sunday) rounds. Factors influencing price change will be number of birdies and eagles, and perhaps a bonus increase for finishing in the top X.
- Players who are not entered in the current tournament will have no price change.
4. You will have a fixed number of trades during the season. They will probably all be doled out on opening day, but I would consider a weekly allotment if you think that has merit.
5. Golfer trading will occur during Monday-Wednesday. Prices must be reset after the final round, and rosters will be frozen at the opening tee time. I hope to make trading "flexible" during that period, meaning that you can undo a trade as long as rosters have not yet frozen.
6. Scoring will solely be based on best ball format. Price gains/losses will only influence your roster's affordability from week to week.
7. For tournaments which use multiple courses for the opening rounds, I would like to include those rounds by consolidating scores from each course, rather than each round. I'll have to solve some programming issues, but this shouldn't be unduly burdensome.
Essentially, I've tried to include the best aspects of the TSN format, and exclude the worst.
Initially, the game site would be pretty bare-bones. I would use the same general template that I use for Football Pickoff, with obvious modifications for the golfer selection process and scorekeeping functions. I would not do much in the way of statistical anaylsis. You can use other sources (such as PGATour.com) for that. As I develop a fuller database, however, I might begin to offer some stats that are better tailored to anaylsis of this game.
Depending on your level of interest (and mine), the game could probably be ready to launch sometime in June, perhaps in time for the U.S. Open, which would be an interesting tournament to start with. The season would continue into the fall. (I'll have to look ahead for a reasonable end date.) In future years, the season would start sometime in the winter.
Before committing to such an undertaking, I'd like some feedback. Here are my questions:
1. Would you play?
2. Are there other game features that should be included?
3. Do you have any suggestions for the repricing formula?
4. What suggestions do you have for number of trades?
I'm hoping to lure back some of the old time regulars who have abandoned the TSN game for obvious reasons. I'd also like to recruit some Gurupies from other sports. It would be a nice side effect if this game could rejuvenate the golf forum as well. If you know others who might be interested, please invite them to this thread.
|
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 65 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, May 26, 2004, 16:28
|
Interesting thought. I'd like to hear from others on this.
What is the value to the game of limiting trades?
|
| 66 | Liters
ID: 15402916
Wed, May 26, 2004, 16:54
|
I remember when I won when we had daily pricing and 2 trades per week. There was a lot of effort in research and guessing the market.There was also a lot of luck in picking the right foursome and having them all make the cut. Since we are not trading after the intial lockdown, there will still be a lot of luck in getting 4 to survive, without having to worry about trades, due to who dropped out etc. I for one would second the unlimited trades proposal as I would not think it takes that much away from the game and you then don't have to overthink it either.
|
| 67 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, May 26, 2004, 17:24
|
Another possibility is to allow teams to "buy" extra trades when needed. Trades would be paid for by reducing your roster cash - not with real money. If you got caught short-handed, you wouldn't be stuck with less than four golfers to open, but you might have to spend $10 or $20 per trade to fill those last 2 slots.
|
| 68 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, May 26, 2004, 19:10
|
My first reaction to limitless trades was a big no. Upon further reasoning though it might not be all that bad, as long as the $$ is held in check. If I had enough roster value, there would be little point in my mind not to choose Woods, Lefty, Singh, Els, etc, or at least the ones that committed to several tournaments in a row. Defeats the point of diversity and following the Zack Johnson, Justin Rose, Luke Donald's of the world. If however, it was not possible to have but one or two of the top golfers each week, throughout, or took nearly the whole season to reach that point, then it might not be bad.
It definitely would effect my strategy for a week like this week when you could afford almost anyone. Players with multiple commits would really not be a concern at all like it is now. Changing to such a strategy would probably have big implications for the game overall.
The idea of spending roster value for trades has always intrigued me and still does, but it seems there should be some minimum roster value required before you would even be allowed to "buy" a trade. These things should be carefully considered if they were to be implemented, IMO.
|
| 69 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, May 27, 2004, 09:42
|
The more I think of it, the more I'm inclined to try it. I do think the cost of a purchased trade needs to be enough to make it worth avoiding, however. Maybe $50 per trade. (Or even more?)
The advantage of this is that it still rewards those who can manage within the 2 trade-per-week budget, but doesn't punish the others quite as harshly as having a DNP (or two). This is the first attempt at fantasy golf for a fair number of managers, and learning how to forecast future commitments can be as much art as science sometimes. Some gamers will be unable (or unwilling) to devote the effort to look ahead. This at least allows them to stay in the game, albeit with a bit of a handicap.
My biggest concern is how this might affect the endgame. There is no way to know today how much roster values will have inflated by the end of the season. If they get too high, then spending roster cash for extra trades will be no impediment.
Even so, I'm inclined to give it a try. But I would like to hear other feedback on this issue.
|
| 70 | Dave R
Dude
ID: 3010361110
Thu, May 27, 2004, 10:13
|
Well I finally remembered to staff some teams this week. Guru, VERY COOL , thanks for putting this together.
Just browsed though some of the above comments, in particular the ones regarding "buying" of trades. My first reaction was that I didn't like it, but thats the purist in me.
However it does warrant consideration and upon thinking further it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I would suggest that there be a season long limit as to the number of trades a player can buy in addition to the financial restraints of the roster value. Food for thought.
The "in progress scoring" is super, gives me something else to waste time on during the day :)
|
| 71 | Barrington
Sustainer
ID: 51637110
Thu, May 27, 2004, 10:46
|
I have always liked including the challenge of managing trades, and would prefer to keep it in the game somehow. However, but it does take time if the number of trades is too restrictive and being too restrictive also sometimes leads to everyone having the same golfers for some tournaments. I think the idea of buying trades with roster value dollars might be a good compromise if the cost were priced properly and might add another strategy element to the game.
|
| 72 | blackjackis21
Leader
ID: 34837521
Thu, May 27, 2004, 11:31
|
Thumbs up on trade-buying - my initial thought is to make it more costly though, maybe $100? Given the price changes last week, $50 just doesn't seem like much to be able to buy a new player (or more than one) from week to week.
Just my $.02 and at any rate thanks for a great TSN-alternative Guru!
|
| 73 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, May 27, 2004, 11:39
|
I generally prefer the "Keep it simple" principle for game rules (Market Madness notwithstanding), but here are a few price alternatives to consider for extra trades. Remember that there would never be a need to buy more than 2 trades on any given week.
A - $50 per extra trade
B - $100 per extra trade
C - $50 for first extra trade, $100 for the second (per week)
D - $100 for first extra trade, $200 for the second (per week)
E - the price per trade should increase as the season wears on.
F - the price per trade should be a function of your franchise value. Teams with higher values should pay more (like a progressive tax).
Unless there is a compelling reason, I'd probably opt for the simplicity of A or B.
|
| 74 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Thu, May 27, 2004, 12:39
|
I say no to unlimited trades which seems toi have no support anyway.
As far as buying extra trades I agree and it would keep the rookies interested in the game. Afterall, you need a solid base to build from.
How much per trade? How about a percentage of the team's roster value? This in effect would have virtually the same penalty consequence on every team. Say 1% of the TRV at the time the trade is bought. You could round it to the nearest $5 if you wish to KIS (Keep It Simple)
just my thoughts
|
| 75 | Jazz Dreamers
ID: 11402712
Thu, May 27, 2004, 13:00
|
Guru, my opinion is that options B or D look the best. I wouldn't be opposed to $200 for each extra trade. My main reason is that, as I understand, a lot of the top players don't play week-to-week. So having to pay for trades will give incentive to consider a lesser-known player who might be committed to some consecutive tournaments.
As I understand it, this week is kind of a fluke in the small number of players in the field? So it's not like it will be that difficult to find players who will play back-to-back weeks. And even though again this week is a bit of a fluke, note that everyone could already afford the top 4 this week, so the pay-for-trade dynamic makes RV relevant throughout the season. Otherwise, RVs might easily reach a point where they can always afford any foursome (except for big events like majors).
Also, have you given any consideration to making majors count more in the scoring? Such as being worth double points? I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I figure it's worth suggesting.
Anyway, great job Guru and a check will be on its way shortly to support this great endeavor!
|
| 76 | Barrington
Sustainer
ID: 51637110
Thu, May 27, 2004, 13:45
|
Personally I like "D" option the best (I think). $50 seems too low and a percentage of roster value sounds more complex and would penalize the better captains (which intuitively doesn't make sense to me).
|
| 77 | TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, May 27, 2004, 14:24
|
Now that it's been out there for a little bit, I want to add some additional comments on why I don't like limiting trades. IMO, it makes you take players you wouldn't normally want on your team. Many of you still play the Smallworld/TSN games and are very used to that format. It is a challenging aspect to that game. I know that regardless of what the rules are to any game, everyone is on equal footing. It is much easier in other sports to make trades knowing that the "stars" you pick will be playing in every game unless they are hurt (or the occasional days off in baseball). It is a matter of preference of who you want to start Vs who you have to start.
I am novice enough at this game that I don't think anyone will mind me posting who I chose for this week's tourney. I have Triplett, Riley, Senden, and Herron. I don't know how everyone else makes their picks, but I looked at how they are playing this year and at their scores from this event from last year. I pulled up a chart that shows the leaders in birdies per holes played thinking that might be a better indicator for success in this game than overall ranking. Even if all four played great this week and are scheduled to play next week, what is the harm in letting me change all of them? Truthfully, I don't know and might just be envisioning a completely different style of game like KKB's 6-pack games.
Limiting trades limits the flexibility that we all have in our rosters. Just like every TSN game, the same players end up on the majority of rosters every week. I would rather have no increase in roster amount, meaning a fixed roster value for the season, with the ability to change all my players every week than have to manage trades and play a golfer I don't like three weeks in a row because he can help me save a trade.
Certainly there is challenging aspect to both formats. With trades you have to look ahead and plan your moves. There will be more roster convergence because of the limiting format. Without trades, you have to decide what four players will do best that week and fit them into your salary cap.
Guru, I do appreciate the game however the format ends up. Also, as a sidenote, the link for Guru Golf does not show up in the Other Golf Links inside this thread.
|
| 78 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, May 27, 2004, 14:47
|
The link doesn't appear in this thread because it was created before the game was available.
|
| 79 | TB
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, May 27, 2004, 15:09
|
Speaking of links, I question the value for two of the ones listed? I started clicking on them to see how I missed Riley withdrawing from the tour and here is what I found:
The AJR newslink takes you to a site where you must click on one of two links. One leads to newslink.com and the other link is invalid but should take you to ajr.org. I didn't see anything about golf at either site.
The Golf Society Online, at the bottom, leads you to www.searching.net, one of those search pages where you can click around and buy something (Travel, Finance, health, Internet, Homes, etc.)
|
| 80 | Rex Davidson
ID: 37492717
Thu, May 27, 2004, 18:10
|
Guru, I'm for either unlimited or purchased trades. First a technical question though. Is a trade used when you sell a player (as it is with TSN) or when you buy a player? If it is the former, there will be a double penalty if you don't buy a trade, because your inability to remove a player, especially a popoular one, from your roster will cost you franchise value as well as not having a golfer contribute to your score. If it's based on $$, then you should be able to release any or all golfers each week and use the trades to acquire new ones. You would, of course, have to allow less than full roster to still score. Don't know if you've programmed it this way.
An alternative I think might be interesting is a flat price for a trade but it should cost you strokes, not franchise value since the winner will be the best score, not the greatest franchise value. Maybe you add 4 strokes to a team's score for each additional trade. Then the question becomes will this golfer improve my four round score by more strokes than it costs me to acquire him? The first buy might be a no brainer as a third golfer in better ball should add enough value . . . but will the fourth?
Love the game so far. Thanks
|
| 81 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, May 27, 2004, 21:31
|
A trade is when you sell a player. Buys do not count as trades.
I don't follow your point about losing franchise value, though. An inactive player will have no price change, so there is only an opportunity loss, but not a real loss. Remember, price changes are based on tournament performance, not buys and sells.
|
| 82 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 28, 2004, 11:08
|
I'm inclined to try option D. $100 for the first extra trade (per week), and $200 for the second.
Rationale: I'd like to retain the value of limited trading, but still offer a reasonable escape valve. I want the price of extra trades to be non-trivial, but not so high as to be uneconomical, should the need arise. For starters, I want to err on the side of conservatism, and $100/$200 seems both simple and conservative.
A well-chosen $100 trade could actually end up making money, as the top gaining golfers each week will gain more than that. A $200 trade will probably not break even financially, but still could be worth it if you end up with 4 no-shows some week, and have no surplus of trades built up.
If, during preseason, team value inflation appears to make these costs too steep or not steep enough, we can amend prior to the regular season.
The idea of charging (4) strokes rather than $ is intriguing, but I thought perhaps too punitive. In any week, you can field a winning roster even with substandard funds. But a stroke charge seems very difficult to properly calibrate and/or overcome. Just call me a traditionalist. We'll keep the idea open for next year, though, if the $ plan seems flawed.
Perhaps there is no need to limit trades, but I have found this aspect of the TSN game to be challenging, and I'd like to retain it in some form. This seems like a reasonable approach. But until the regular season starts, all rules are written in pencil, not ink.
|
| 83 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Fri, May 28, 2004, 21:49
|
Guru, Here is some info about changes concerning the Las Vegas tournament which might interest you.
VIVA LAS VEGAS:@ The Las Vegas Invitational is cutting the tournament from 90 holes to 72, and swapping out one of the courses for the Jack Nicklaus-designed Bear's Best.
The Las Vegas event will be played Oct. 7-10 and retain its pro-am format for the first three days. Players will compete on the TPC Canyons, the TPC at Summerlin and Bear's Best, with the final round held at Summerlin.
Tournament chairman John Sullivan said one reason for the change to 72 holes is to accommodate those playing the American Express Championship in Ireland the previous week.
|
| 84 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 28, 2004, 22:28
|
Thanks. That will help me out. Now I don't have to worry about any 5 round tournaments until next year.
|
| 85 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 11:58
|
At the bottom of the tournament recap page is a list of all tournaments for the rest of the season. I inserted an extra line in between the last preseason tourney and the U.S. Open, which starts the regular season. I called it "Flag Day", and it is simply a place holder which allows me to efficiently blank out all roster data without destroying preseason data.
So no, there really is no Flag Day tournament. Just ignore it.
|
| 86 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 12:05
|
You plan to empty the rosters right? I like that idea so people who had a roster during the preseason aren't rewarded with points in the 1st week if they forget to enter a roster for the open.
|
| 87 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jun 05, 2004, 12:09
|
Yes, rosters will be emptied, trades will be unlimited for that week (and then reset to 4 for the start of week #2), and cash will be reset to $4000. I'll retain the preseason history, but everything will be cleared out for the start of the regular season.
|
| 88 | Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 16:55
|
I'm sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but do trades roll over like they do in the TSN/SmallWorld games? As in, I have 4 trades, and use 3 this week, do I get to keep one going into next week?
|
| 89 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jun 14, 2004, 17:38
|
Yes, trades roll over.
Motley, I sent you an email last week. Maybe I have an obsolete address? Could you please send me an email at davehall@rotoguru2.com?
Thx.
|
| 90 | Motley Crue
Sustainer
ID: 439372011
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 11:08
|
Guru,
I moved in May so all of my contact information changed. I did, however, receive an e-mail from you last night. I suppose you found my new e-mail address. At any rate, I will reply to your e-mail with my current information.
MC
|
| 91 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 11:15
|
Yeah, when I saw your new GuruGolf registration, I had a new option to track you down!
|
| 92 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 150521415
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 15:16
|
Guru-
Is it possible to deleted one of the teams I created? I only want to play with my team named "THK" and would like the "THK (-6 wins)" to be deleted. -6 wins just refers the the US Open prediction and isn't relevent for the entire Golf season.
Thanks,
THK
|
| 93 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 16:35
|
It's not easy - especially since it's in the top slot among your teams. Just ignore it.
|
| 94 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 150521415
Tue, Jun 15, 2004, 18:30
|
Will do Guru. I love the Golf Majors and I am already feeling confident about my squad with this scoring system! ;-)
Good luck all,
THK
|
| 95 | youngroman
ID: 59242611
Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 15:46
|
Gutu, i noticed a typo: Deutche Bank Championship
i found this on the rules page and on the grecap.cgi-page too.
it should be Deutsche Bank Championship (with an s in Deutsche)
|
| 96 | youngroman
ID: 59242611
Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 15:48
|
and there was a typo from me, too. Sorry for that t, Guru!
|
| 97 | Gutu
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jun 16, 2004, 16:06
|
Fixed. Thanks.
|
| 98 | Wheatridge
ID: 435582710
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:33
|
Dave, I have just selected my golfers for the Booz Allen Classic and noticed that I still had my Open roster and its value. My listing was not set back to 4,000,000 dollars, etc. I was a little short changed for the opening tournament.
|
| 99 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:50
|
Maybe I don't understand what you just said, but what's the problem?
Why shouldn't you still have your Open roster? And since your team lost $30 in the Open, why shouldn't you have a little less than $4000?
The U.S. Open was the opening tournament.
|
| 100 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 10:57
|
Perhaps you've misunderstood the "reset" function?
This simply allows you to undo all trades made since the last freeze. So, if you reset today, your roster reverts to its state for the U.S. Open.
If you want a true "do-over" with a blank roster and $4000, then you need to create a new team. You can do that on the "My Account" page.
|
| 101 | Wheatridge
ID: 435582710
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 15:43
|
Sorry about that. I thought the Open was the last in the practice series, and that the new seasonstarted with Booz Allen, just as TSN has started over.
|
| 102 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 15:50
|
Since the initial discussion of the game, I've always said that the game would start no later than the U.S. Open. All rosters were cleared before the Open, and trades and values were reset. I thought it was pretty obvious.
|
| 103 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 17:24
|
Man, this field is UGLY! Had to burn 3 trades on all 3 teams. The highest price guy is only like 1100-something.
Makes for an interesting decision....do you try to clean up on everyone else who conserves trades? Or do you maybe leave an inactive golfer and hope you squeak out a decent score? Decisions, decisions.
|
| 104 | StLCards
Leader
ID: 31010716
Wed, Jun 23, 2004, 17:39
|
I had 2/2/3 trades on each of my 3 trades. Trade conservation can really burn you if you choose the wrong "long term" hold. 1) they play multiple tournaments and miss the cut every time, 2) they miss the cut in the first tourney and then drop out for the next, meaning they were a 1 week hold anyway. With the British Open just a few weeks off this could get interesting...
|
| 105 | TaRhEElKiD
ID: 150521415
Thu, Jun 24, 2004, 00:30
|
I am going week by week just for the hell of it.....LoL. Just started work and don't have time to research that much!!!
THK
|
| 106 | Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 21:01
|
Guru my Tdotters team seems to have only 2 trades left but my numbers I only used 3 trades last week and should have 3 trades this week. Maybe I'm wrong/done something to use that extra trade but if you could investigate I'd appreciate it.
|
| 107 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 22:45
|
Twarpy - When I checked the log of transactions last week, I see the following:
sell Clarke, Darren
sell Garcia, Sergio
sell Toms, David
buy Scott, Adam
buy Howell III, Charles
sell Howell III, Charles
buy Howell III, Charles
buy Sabbatini, Rory
Obviously, you did not intend to buy Howell, then sell him, and then buy again. But if you do that, you need to reset your roser back to the last freeze status and then retrade.
I just reset your trade balance back to 3 as of the last freeze. If you have made any trades already this week, you'll need to reset your roster to reclaim that trade.
|
| 108 | Twarpy
Leader
ID: 386242821
Mon, Jun 28, 2004, 23:56
|
Ahh, thought it might be someting similar to that. Appreciate it, will try to remember that in the future.
|
| 109 | leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 15:42
|
Guru, I have a question I can't figure out. Looking at the teams with the higher RV, dviox is on top with 4500+. But, I can't tell if it is taking into account generated income from before the US Open starting date. If you click on his team, it looks like he has generated income since the Memorial? Rex Monterra seems to have been generating income since the Colonial?
|
| 110 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:15
|
Using the link in Post 55
I show dviox gain 190, 170, & 150 for a total of 510 gain
Seems right to me.
|
| 111 | leggestand
Sustainer
ID: 451036518
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:24
|
Thanks Challenger, I now see how it works. I thought all rosters reset, so, that when the "real" game started you wouldn't even see the practice tourneys. Everyone's team still reset, even if the old rosters are still shown.
|
| 112 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:29
|
Your welcome. Having the preseason results showing sometimes confuses me, mainly because I did better.
Guru, do you think you could add a column to our recap sheet showing our weekly RV gains/losses?
|
| 113 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 16:57
|
I should probably make it clearer that the rosters and values were reset before the U.S. Open.
And adding a column for gain should be simple. I should have it done shortly.
|
| 114 | Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Jul 07, 2004, 23:25
|
Thanks, much better & clearer
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|